About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
. there is no doubt we have to bring down medicare health-care cost growth. the difference is that we believe we should expand on the kind of reforms that we made in the affordable care act, where we achieved billion about $716 billion in savings, not simply by across the board provider cuts, but by changing the incentive structure, the way we pay providers so we focus on the value of care, not the volume of care. i think it is ironic that we have gone in the last four weeks from many of our republican colleagues criticizing the president for having done too much in savings on medicare, $716 billion -- their presidential candidate proposed putting that money back in, in other words adding $716 billion back into the cost of medicare, to complaining the president does not want to do enough. >> who was that presidential candidate? anyone remember? >> i do not want to relitigate the campaign, but it is an important point, i think, which is he proposed that we put the $716 billion net cost back into medicare, which would have shorten the life of the trust fund by eight years. now, the president's bud
the job engine in the economy, how dc healthcare policy factoring into that pushed mark -- how do you see healthcare policy factoring into that question mark -- into that? >> we have seen dramatic declines in small companies that offer health insurance to employees. that means that small companies are dropping coverage. what we have seen is companies sort of organizing themselves around the idea of an track in employees who do not recover -- of attracting employees who do not need coverage. there is a -- you are looking for a particular kind of person. you are looking for a part-time person. in that sense, it is a problem. if you go forward with health insurance changes over the next two or three years, it is not clear how that will shake out. there is a chain of what employers have to do with 15 employees -- 15 employees and more. in terms of the labor market distortion, they should remove the situation. ideally, everyone would have coverage and they're not going have to cater their hiring practices around the. on the other hand, it is a real cliff effect for many companies. the companie
. i get a very good health care package. if i get sick, i am unfettered in terms of my health-care consumption. it will make it more costly and i will start shopping for health care. that will create more transparency and get the growth in health-care costs down. we do not know what is going to work, but there are some interesting new programs that have potential. we should see how those worked out before we engage in some very significant structural changes. like a voucher program. we may have to go down that path, but it is much too premature to do that. we should see how these developments work. >> following up, "if temporarily going over the cliff is necessary to achieving a good agreement, lawmakers should not hesitate to do so." how long do think we could stay over the cliff without doing significant damage to the economy? >> i think you could go into early february. by early february, it looks like you are not coming to a deal and investors began to discount the likelihood you're not coming to a deal, you will see stock prices decline, the bond market reacted. by mid-februar
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3